FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234  
235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   >>   >|  
gement was by no means easy; yet in a large voting population there is always a percentage of party followers on whom the obligations of party creeds sit lightly. Gradually, from talk of individuals and speculations of newspapers, the intrigue proceeded to a coquetting between rival conventions. Here the formal proceedings encountered too much protest and indignation, and the scheme was handed over to standing committees, who could deliberate and bargain in secret. It must be stated to the credit of Douglas, that he publicly rejected any alliance not based on his principle of "non-intervention";[4] but the committees and managers cared little for the disavowal. In due time they perfected their agreement that the New York electoral ticket (numbering thirty-five) should be made up of adherents of the three different factions in the following proportion: Douglas, eighteen; Bell, ten; Breckinridge, seven. This agreement was carried out, and the fusion ticket thus constituted was voted for at the Presidential election by the combined opponents of Lincoln. In Pennsylvania, notwithstanding that Douglas disapproved the scheme, an agreement or movement of fusion also took place; but in this case it did not become complete, and was not altogether carried out by the parties to it, as in New York. The electoral ticket had been nominated by the usual Democratic State Convention (March 1) prior to the Charleston disruption, and, as it turned out, about one-third of these nominees were favorable to Douglas. After the disruption, the Douglas men also formed a straight, or Douglas, electoral ticket. In order to unite the two wings at the October State election, the Executive Committee of the original convention recommended (July 2) that the electors first nominated should vote for Douglas if his election were possible; if not, should vote for Breckinridge. A subsequent resolution (August 9) recommended that the electors should vote for either Douglas or Breckinridge, as the preponderance of Douglas or Breckinridge votes in the State might indicate. On some implied agreement of this character, not clearly defined or made public, the Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell factions voted together for governor in October. Being beaten by a considerable majority at that election, the impulse to fusion was greatly weakened. Finally, the original Democratic State Committee rescinded (October 12) all its resolutions of fusion, and the Douglas State C
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234  
235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Douglas

 
Breckinridge
 

fusion

 
election
 
agreement
 

ticket

 

electoral

 

October

 
electors
 
original

Committee
 

committees

 

nominated

 

carried

 

factions

 

Democratic

 

disruption

 

recommended

 
scheme
 
favorable

population

 

formed

 

nominees

 

Executive

 

voting

 

turned

 
straight
 
Charleston
 

parties

 
altogether

complete

 
followers
 

percentage

 
convention
 
Convention
 

beaten

 
considerable
 

majority

 

governor

 
defined

public

 

impulse

 

greatly

 

resolutions

 

weakened

 

Finally

 
rescinded
 

character

 

implied

 

gement